Good day, and welcome to the Chesapeake Energy Fourth Quarter and Full- Year 2023 Results Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, please press star then two. Please note, today's event is being recorded. I'd now like to turn the conference over to Chris Ayres, Vice President, Investor Relations and Treasurer. Please go ahead. Thank you, Rocco. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining our call today to discuss Chesapeake's Fourth Quarter and Full-Y ear 2023 Financial and Operating Results. Hopefully, you've had a chance to review our press release, and the updated investor presentation that we posted to our website yesterday. During this morning's call, we will be making forward-looking statements, which consist of statements that cannot be confirmed by reference to existing information, including statements regarding our beliefs, goals, expectations, forecasts, projections, and future performance, and the assumptions underlying such statements. Please note that there are a number of factors that will cause actual results to differ materially from our forward-looking statements, including the factors identified and discussed in our press release and other SEC filings. Please also recognize that, except as required by law, we undertake no duty to update any forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on such statements. We may also refer to some non-GAAP financial measures, which help facilitate comparisons across periods with peers. For any non-GAAP measure, we use a reconciliation to the nearest corresponding GAAP measure, which can be found on our website. With me today on the call are Nick Dell'Osso, Mohit Singh, and Josh Viets. Nick will give a brief overview of our results, and then we'll open up the teleconference to Q&A. With that, thank you again, and I'll now turn the conference over to Nick. Good morning, and thank you for joining our call. We continued to execute on our strategic pillars in 2023, proving we're a company built to deliver sustainable value to shareholders through cycles. The Marcellus team had another strong year, with well cost improving 17% since Q1. We increased our footage drilled per day by 40%, and drilled nine of the 10 longest laterals in our history in the basin. In the Haynesville, we delivered strong production performance throughout the year, benefiting from improved gathering system hydraulics, while our drilling performance continues to outpace our peers in the most difficult drilling environment in the lower 48. Importantly, we accomplished these operational milestones, while improving our total recordable incident rate by 40% to an industry-leading 0.14 injury rate. Additional highlights for the year include, returning approximately $840 million to shareholders via dividends and buybacks, advancing our path to be LNG ready by securing HOAs up to 3 million t per annum linked to JKM, and recently signing an LNG sales and purchase agreement with Delfin and Golar for long-term liquefaction offtake. Completing our Eagle Ford exit for a total consideration of greater than $3.5 billion, and receiving credit upgrades from all three agencies and exiting the year with a cash balance of approximately $1.1 billion. Turning our attention to 2024, we started the year by announcing our shareholder value-driven merger with Southwestern. Our combined company will accelerate America's energy reach by accessing more markets, effectively mitigating price volatility, and ultimately increasing the revenue per unit of the product we sell. We are very encouraged about the growth and long-term demand for natural gas, the affordable, reliable, lower carbon energy the world needs. Today, the market is clearly oversupplied. In addition, we see capital supply cycles that can take 12-18 months to evolve, while demand fluctuates quarterly. While we will benefit from a strong hedge position, we are responding accordingly with our 2024 capital and operational plan. First, we are reducing capital by nearly 20%, and production approximately 15% from the preliminary outlook we provided last quarter. Under our revised capital program, we plan to limit our turn-in-line count to 30-40 wells, with the majority having already occurred in January and February, drop two frac crews, leaving one frac crew in each basin, and drop two rigs, resulting in four rigs in the Haynesville beginning in March and three rigs in the Marcellus beginning mid-year. We believe limiting turn-in-lines and building DUCs is the prudent response to today's market. Doing so will shorten our cycle of supply to appropriately and effectively meet market demand. This results in shorter cycle, capital-efficient decisions that will ultimately offer incremental capacity of up to 1 Bcf per day by the fourth quarter, ensuring we have ample supply to provide customers when demand recovers. Ultimately, our plan is designed to maintain productive capacity, which positions us to quickly return to over 3 Bcf per day with minimal incremental capital investment. We will be prudent in our approach, bringing production back online efficiently as consumer demand warrants. Overall, our 2024 program demonstrates Chesapeake's continued focus on capital discipline, operational efficiency, and free cash flow generation, while building the capacity to consistently deliver for consumers and shareholders through all demand cycles. S imply put, Chesapeake is built for the volatility we are experiencing today, and our strategy is positioning the company to thrive as the market rebalances into 2025. We have the portfolio, balance sheet, and demonstrated operational track record to continue driving capital efficiencies, maximizing returns and reducing risk. I look forward to updating you on our progress throughout the year, and we're now pleased to address your questions. Thank you. We will now begin the question- and- answer session. To ask a question, you may press star then one on your telephone keypad. If you are using a speakerphone, we ask that you please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any point your question has been addressed and you'd like to remove yourself from queue, please press star then two. Today's first question comes from Josh Silverstein with UBS. Please go ahead. Yeah, thanks. Good morning, everybody down there. I wanted to start just on the game plan that you guys have outlined here. Why the 1 Bcf a day reduction in this plan? Was this a function of the base declines that you have with the lower rig count? Or asked another way, what are the other current iterations you guys came up with for the outlook? Thanks. That is a great question, Josh. I want you to think about the production decline that we're seeing today as a function of the base decline, because what we're really doing is we're just stopping turning in line wells that we've had in progress. T he reason we're doing that is that we see that the market is oversupplied right now. CapEx reductions that we and anybody else in the industry take on have an impact to production several months out, as long as 12 months out. For our business, we believe the right answer is to reduce production today. The market is oversupplied today. The value that you would receive for turning in wells today reflects the fact that the market is oversupplied. We think we should hold on to that productive capacity, and turn it in line when there is greater demand and when the market is not oversupplied. This allows us to be responsive quickly. That amount of production that we've quoted is really just to give you a sense of how much productive capacity we would build up, to be responsive to the market as the demand is there by the end of this year. We've quoted it as a Bcf a day, if all of those wells were turned in line in one quarter. Now, that's probably not a very realistic answer. We would probably layer those in. We would assume that demand would come back in some measured fashion, and therefore, we could return production in a measured fashion. T hat would be the aggregate volume that would be sitting, and ready to respond. Got it. T hen, just given the volatility in natural gas prices we've seen over the past couple of years, do you think you'd want to operate with a backlog of wells going forward? This way, you could respond to the changes in price environments. Your balance sheet and interest rates certainly afford that, but I'm curious how you're thinking about operating going forward. Thanks. It's another really good question. I think the fact that we feel comfortable pausing turning lines and slowing completions activity, slowing drilling activity to match that cadence, should be considered as we would also be comfortable accelerating those cycle times in the future when needed. Really, all we're doing here is we're extending cycle times of past capital that's been deployed. We would have the flexibility to increase those cycle times in the future if market conditions warranted, and deliver more production on a shorter period of time relative to the dollars that we're spending. Y ou know, we like the flexibility in our business, and then at some point, if the market proved to continue to be undersupplied in the future, you could add capital and grow your productive capacity beyond where we sit today. T his change is really designed to maintain productive capacity in that neighborhood of 3.2 Bcf a day. You should consider maintenance capital of $1.5 billion-$1.6 billion around that level of production. All of that remains unchanged for the business that we're presenting to the market today. We're just allowing cycle times to expand out, allowing our base decline to reduce the oversupply that we see today, which would cause us to receive a very low price for our gas and to hold on to that production for a time when the market needs it better, and we can better deliver it where customers need the gas. All right. Thank you. Our next question today comes from Charles Meade with Johnson Rice. Please go ahead. Good morning, Nick to you and the whole Chesapeake team there. Morning, Charles. I want to actually continue along that kind of line of questioning. Y ou've already given us a lot of insight here, but what you're laying out here is a new approach, from what we've seen or at least from what I've seen over the last several years in the industry, not just building DUCs, but also building TILs. I'm wondering if you can elaborate a bit on, you know, recognize that this is a little bit, you know, terra incognita, but elaborate a bit on how you're thinking of the sequence of spending money on DUCs versus bringing TILs online. I can think of at least a couple of different ways it might go. You know, I don't expect you'll give us a price at which you'll act, but maybe you'll surprise me on that. I can imagine one scenario where you would, you know,, just when you got to the price you wanted, you would just bring your TILs online and then you'd backfill with the DUCs. I could also imagine a scenario where you guys are still running a completion crew, and you don't want to bring wells online and so you'd actually work down that DUC inventory ahead of time. C an you just elaborate a bit on how you're dealing with these kind of novel pieces that you now have on the board? I'll start, and Josh may have something to add here, but you know, the way we're thinking about this, Charles, is we will be paying very close attention to the underlying fundamentals, the underlying supply and demand situation in the market. W e'll try to bring gas online when we see that there is demand that needs the gas. Today, we are filling storage or not drawing from storage at the levels consistent with the past, which is setting us up to have pretty full storage going into the next storage season, next fall. W e can see very clearly that the market has more supply today than there is demand on an annualized basis, and so we think we should hold back our supply to better meet that demand in the future. We know that demand will grow in the future. We have confidence in that, and we believe we should be more efficient with the capital we have spent, the wells that we have in cycle and the wells that we will continue to have in cycle. T his really is about making sure that we are continuing a business from a capital perspective that is efficient at drilling wells, is efficient at delivering productive capacity, but that we can then have the flexibility to hold that production for the times that it's better needed. I want to reiterate that we are pretty optimistic about the future for gas markets, and this allows us to better deliver production when it's needed, where it's needed, into those markets as demand is present and ready for it. Yeah. Charles, this is Josh. I think just the other thing I would comment on is, you know, we're going to be very prudent around how we activate production. T he optionality that we like about the deferred TILs is that i t gives us an immediate response when we see that structural change in the gas markets. Y ou know, we would anticipate that we would start to activate the TILs, and then we would, you know, likely soon after begin, you know, starting to activate some of the DUCs. One thing to keep in mind is that any production associated with those deferred completions is effectively going to lag, you know, by a quarter. W e do see that as effectively starting to backfill the TILs that we're starting to activate in the prior quarter. We really like the cadence that is set up by this, and again, we think it offers quite a bit of flexibility for us going forward. Got it. That's great detail. Thank you both of you for that. T hen, my follow-up, it looks to us like, on a, you know, pro forma basis, like a 20% decline, 2024 versus 2023, and that's a little bit higher than I would have guessed. Nick, you may have given part of the answer already with the majority of your TILs for the year already having happened. I'm wondering, is there also perhaps some kind of elective, you know, production restriction in there, maybe from, you know, deferred midstream projects, or is there anything else that is contributing to that decline beyond just the pause in TILs? No, Charles, this is Josh again. You know, really, the decline is being set up by the deferred TILs. You know, you have a material amount of production that we're simply choosing not to enter into the system, and so that is ultimately what's leading the decline. W hat you see on a year-over-year basis or if you want to think about it from Q4 to Q4, is effectively the underlying base decline of the assets that we operate today. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Our next question comes from Matt Portillo with TPH. Please go ahead. Good morning, all. Maybe, Nick, just starting out at a high level, just wanted to come back to the philosophical view on the capital allocation cut here. Looking at your hedge book that you have in place, it looks like your break even could have been justified on maintenance capital at a very low gas price in 2024. Y ou've obviously taken a very decisive step here to help correct the market from an oversupply perspective. Just curious how the team arrived at that decision and how this may kind of play out in regards to your views on return on capital, and how you might think about adding back to the market in 2025 and 2026 as it relates to production. All great questions. Let me start by saying, we don't view this change as something that we are attempting to, " fix the market." We view this as what we think is prudent to manage our assets, our ability to generate cash flow for our shareholders and that's really how we think about this. One company is not positioned to, "fix the market." W e're really thinking just about what makes sense for our company and our shareholders each day. From a hedge perspective, we always separate hedges from the decision to deploy capital. Hedges are really about how you've deployed capital historically. They're a financial protection. They're available to you for paper gains and losses, and there's no need to mentally tie hedges to the production that we deliver to market each and every day. S aid in another way, because you have hedges should not divorce you from paying attention to supply-demand fundamentals that are in front of you and impacting the price you receive for your physical product, that you sell every day. T he decision that we've made today is 100% about having a productive capacity that we have spent money on throughout 2023. Looking at the market today, recognizing that the market is pretty clearly telling us that it doesn't need our gas today, and knowing that we have the flexibility to hold off on delivering that gas to the market until such time that there is higher demand. W e're happy to do that. We did run a lot of different scenarios and thought about different changes to the capital program. We certainly thought about reducing the capital program in a more significant manner than we are here today. W hat that really results in is bigger changes to 2025 production, and we don't believe that's prudent given the fundamentals that we see today. We expect there to still be a step change in demand in 2025 as incremental LNG capacity comes online, as the market continues to grow for natural gas domestically. We also think the supply dynamics would be better by 2025. Remember that there's a lot of capital cut across the industry last summer, and the results of those capital changes just haven't shown up yet. That's why I referenced in my opening comments that we see the cycle of capital and supply being as long as 12-18 months. Think about the fact that this past fall is when we really saw maximum supply to the market. We're really still seeing it today. The CapEx increases associated with that supply response started, w ell, really, in the summer of 2022, and carried through the beginning of 2023, with the big reductions in capital not occurring until the summer of 2023. The lag time of CapEx decisions is very long, and what we're really attempting to do is be responsive to the market conditions that we see in front of us today, knowing that a capital decision has a much longer time to take effect. S topping turn-in-line wells has an immediate impact on the economics that we see for our resource. Great. T hen maybe as a follow-up question for Josh, just curious how we should be thinking about the outlook for 2025. I know it's still a long ways off, but trying to think through how long it might take you to get back to more of a maintenance program as it relates to your rigs and you frac fleets. T hen effectively, is it still fair to think about the timing being from about six months from when a rig hits the ground to when we should be expecting production to turn in line. I know you've got obviously the deferred TILs, but just thinking about kind of the base program, how that might progress over the next 12-18 months, and what we'd need to see maybe fundamentally to start to pick back up towards the maintenance level on the base program. Yeah, sure. Thanks, Matt. You know, first of all, I mean, we clearly are looking for, you know, structural shifts in the demand side of the equation, you know, for us to be thinking about getting back up to some maintenance level of activity. You know, but I think the way, again that we would likely start to phase in activity is starting to activate our deferred TILs first. We've then begin to activate our incremental frac crews, which would take us to a total of four frac crews across our business today. T hen, and the way we would think about any additional rig additions, so again, as we go down from, you know, 5 to 4 rigs in the Haynesville, and then from four to three in the Marcellus, is as we start to deplete the deferred completion inventory, down to something that we would consider to be a more workng, normal working level, we would then, you know, start to bring those rigs back. Y ou're absolutely right, you know, as far as, you know, kind of the typical cycle time, you are looking at roughly six months from the time you add a rig to actually start seeing any meaningful production impact from those rigs. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Nitin Kumar with Mizuho. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys, and thanks for taking my questions. I guess where I'm going to start off, Nick, and just as you came up with this framework, to us, it looks like you're maintaining the balance between the Appalachia and the Haynesville. Both of them are declining roughly about the same percentages, and the mix stays the same. Why that sort of allocation across the two assets? Would it have been maybe better to reduce the Haynesville a little bit faster? Just any color around that. Well, just keep in mind that, you know, pricing is different in both of the assets, and so certainly today, when the market is oversupplied, you're receiving quite a low value for gas in the Marcellus. Storage is quite full in the Northeast, and so we do see it prudent to reduce turn-in-lines in both basins to what is something, you know, pretty close to zero for the rest of the year. Good news is we can change that quickly if the market changes and shows us that the gas is needed, and we can change that by region. If there is a shortfall or improved market in the Northeast, we can change that separate and apart from the Haynesville. W e maintain full flexibility, but we just see pretty similar market conditions in both places right now. Got it. Thanks. T hen for my follow-up, you mentioned that, you know, one company cannot, "fix the market," but you're about to become much bigger, somewhere in the second quarter. The size of this deferred TIL inventory that you're holding, I know you can't comment on Southwestern's plans, but is this the right size for just Chesapeake or do you think this could be the right size for a combined company down the road? We're just thinking about Chesapeake here. Great, thanks. I thought I'd try. Thank you. And our next question comes from Bert Donnes with Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning, guys. I just wanted to follow up and clarify one of your previous comments. Is there a limit to the amount of DUCs you would build if we see, you know, a prolonged down cycle? You know, maybe the 1 Bcf is kind of the limit, maybe like that amount as your, you know, saved up ammo, or you know, would you start dropping rigs immediately in 25 if we saw a sustained down cycle? Yeah. Good morning, Bert. Josh here. You know, that was a part of our rationale for why we wanted to start taking rigs out now. You know, you get to a certain point with DUC inventory where it simply starts to, you know, look and feel like inefficient use of capital. T hat's why we'll be dropping a rig, you know, next month in the Haynesville and then another rig in the Marcellus in July. That is absolutely a consideration for us, you know, as we think about, you know, the allocation of capital to rigs and frac crews. Sorry, was it a DUC limit, or was the amount of production the limit? It just seemed like a nice, clean number at 1 Bcf, so I didn't know if that was kind of the solver for it or whether it was you know, the way your rig frac crew was played out. Yeah, I mean, you know, we clearly looked at, looked at both, but you know, we really just tried to balance what we thought was, you know, a meaningful amount of production that we could activate, you know, with, you know, an efficient use of capital going forward. T here was, you know, simply a balance that we tried to strike between the two. Okay, m akes sense. T hen I'll shift gears to stop hammering that point, s o just trying to understand the buyback activity in 4Q. Was that, you know, cut short due to the merger announcement, or would there have been kind of a similar amount, even if you didn't enter a blackout period? M aybe if you could reconcile that against, you know, the free cash flow being technically negative in 4Q, yet you still had some activity. Thanks. Yeah. Y ou know, look, we were really comfortable executing our buyback throughout 2024. Obviously, once we got deep into the merger discussions, that activity had to pause. We are not able to restart that activity while we have a pending transaction like the merger out there. W e're, you know, in the future, we'll be back to buying back stock when we can and look forward to that day. Y ou know, I'll just remind you that inclusive of buybacks and dividends in 2023, we had an 8% return to equity. Pretty robust, and we felt good about that number. Y ou know, I guess it's a fair statement to say that if we weren't engaged in those discussions, we probably would have continued to buy some stock through the end of the year. That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Doug Leggate, with Bank of America. Please go ahead. Good morning, everyone. A note to self, don't forget to hit star one. Sorry about the late attendance. Nick, the markets just opened, the gas stocks are all up, gas prices are up 17%. I just want to say, strong message and, you know, taking leadership like this on how to navigate, this is something I think the rest of the industry could pay attention to. W ell done on that. My question is two things, kind of related. First, you are still spending $1.3 billion this year, but the way I look at it is, or the way we look at it, I should say, you're putting in place by the end of the year, a Bcf a day of spare capacity with a 30% decline. If I simplistically add those two numbers together, you know, the exit rate, call it, you know, 2 plus a Bcf, you're pretty much back to your maintenance kind of level, but you're doing it or production, but you're doing it with a substantially lower capital, number 1.3 versus what you tell us is 1.5-1.6. What am I missing? Yeah, Doug, I mean, I think the key element to that is, in order then to sustain that, and again, assuming all of the production comes on in the fourth quarter and you're back at that 3.2-3.3 level, we need to get back on a pretty normal cadence of maintenance activity, which includes, you know, completing, you know, say, 15-20 wells a month, and then ultimately getting back to having 5 and 4 rigs between the Haynesville and Marcellus. T he key there is, you know, we can add the production back, and then we need to be deploying the capital at a maintenance level in order to support that going forward. Okay. W e shouldn't think that there's an implicit reset in sustaining capital now that Eagle Ford is gone? No. No, we don't see that. Okay, a ll right. Okay, that's helpful. I would add, Doug, you know, we did say in our opening comments that we're continuing to see some good capital efficiencies across the assets. We had record wells drilled in both the Marcellus and Haynesville. We continue to focus on capital efficiencies across our assets, and generally, we find that these times when you reduce activity are when you make real progress. W e're looking forward to 2024 being another very strong year from a capital efficiency standpoint, continuing to improve our pace of drilling, our cost per stage of completions, and our overall effectiveness at bringing wells online for the maximum productivity for that given location at the lowest possible cost. Okay, v ery, very clear, Nick. O bviously I know you don't want to talk about Southwestern, but presumably this would be the strategy for the combined company. Fair point? Well, I mean, again, you know, when we think about the decisions we're making for capital allocation for this year, it has nothing to do with our merger. This is just simply looking at the productive capacity we have today, the market conditions we see in front of us, making the best decisions we can make for our shareholders. Now, the concept that a company with a very strong balance sheet and a large production base can basically use the turn-in-line cadence available to us, much the way that we would use storage if there was more storage available in the market, is a strategy that I think could be deployed in the future and we would look forward to considering those opportunities. You know, our hope is that by the time you get to 2025, you have a step change in demand. We see growing demand for gas, we will be in a position to, you know, continue to deliver the most efficient, lowest-cost gas we can to the market as quickly as we possibly can to a market that needs it. We think that's the more likely future for us. Very clear. My follow-up is a quick one. Again, to the extent you can speak to this, Nick, you haven't had an FTC request, a second FTC request, I should say. You're still talking, you know, notionally about second quarter close. If we look at everything else going on in the market, one would assume you're probably going to get a second FTC request. My question is, d oes that have any impact on integration planning, or does that go ahead anyway? No, we're well into the weeds of integration planning at this point. We have a tremendous amount to work on, v ery busy. We have teams that have been set up and working through how to think about a pro forma organizational structure, all the business processes, all the IT systems, all of the things that you plan for. We will be ready for a quick close. We can continue to work on things from an integration standpoint. If it takes longer, we won't let that distract us or bother us in any way. We're well into the work required for a successful integration. Great. I appreciate the questions, guys. Thanks so much. Thanks, Nick. Our next question today comes from Paul Diamond with Citi. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, all. Thanks for taking my call. Just a quick one on the kind of more the operational side of those deferred TILs. How should we think about any potential, you know, movement just on the type curves, whether it's increased pre-pressure bleed or maybe increased saturation? Do you guys anticipate those type curves looking any different from, you know, just normally completed wells or normally timed wells? Yeah. Good morning, Paul. No, we don't. You know, we've been operating these assets for well over a decade, and so we have a lot of experience, you know, being in a situation where we had to defer completions and in this case, defer TILs. A ctually, you know, through the years, we've seen some benefits to this, where we simply see the water imbibe into the reservoir. As we start to reactivate the production, we see similar gas productivity, but less water production, which of course is beneficial, you know, from an operating cost standpoint. N o, we do not anticipate any change to type curves. Understood. Just kind of circling back on one of the comments from the prepared remarks. Just talked about a 70% well cost improvement in Marcellus. Just wanted to see how you were thinking about a progression of that, whether there's more meat on the bone, or I guess, w hat you guys' internal target is for how much more you can improve things out there? Yeah, sure, Paul. I mean, you know, the teams have done an unbelievable job this year, really across the whole company, capturing efficiencies. You know, we quoted there a 40% improvement in our footage per day. You know, on top of that, you know, starting the fourth quarter, we were starting to see some, you know, deflationary elements start to show up in the cost, you know, with the biggest mover being on the OCTG side, which, you know, has come off for us around 40%. W e do think there are some, you know, tailwind coming into the year. You know, we guided at the end of last year to, you know, around a 5%-7% deflation, you know, from, you know, kind of year-over-year levels. We still feel pretty good about that right now. You know, we're anticipating the Marcellus to be, you know, around 10% year-over-year cost improvements, which is a combination of deflation, extended laterals which are going to be up about 15% or so, and just, you know, execution efficiencies that we see showing up in the system. Y ou know, my expectation is we continue to get better as well, and you know, we start to see costs, you know, beyond that 10% that I've quoted here. Understood. Thanks for your time. I'll leave it there. Thank you. O ur next question comes from Michael Scialla with Stephens. Please go ahead. Yeah. G ood morning, everybody. Nick, you mentioned you probably wouldn't bring back the 1 Bcf per day in any given quarter. I f you do get the step change in demand that you're anticipating, how quickly could you bring that 1 BCF per day online? Does it take a full quarter, or is it something less than that? A re there any infill constraints or anything that you need to be thinking about there? Yeah. Hey, Mike, this is Josh. You know, there's going to be some operational considerations as we start to reactivate the production. It's just simply logistics planning around, you know, managing gas, coming into gas gathering systems and water. Y ou know, we think that, you know, over the course of weeks, it's not months or a quarter, it's over a, you know, matter of weeks, so, you know, say, you know, a month, you know, we think we can, you know, start to reactivate that production. I would just remind you, you know, we're obviously going to be monitoring, you know, the markets in each of the basins, so t hey are very different. They have different market dynamics, and so it could be that we start to phase in TILs in one area and not the other, with that maybe lagging behind. I think there's just a number of considerations. Y ou know, the teams are well-prepared to manage this type of activity, and anxious to see, you know, what they do with it. Understood. Just to follow up that, with the reduction in volumes you'll have, are there any commitments with Millennium or any other pipelines that will come into play that you need to keep an eye on? Hey. Mike, good morning. This is Mohit. T he way you should think about Millennium Pipeline, the volumes that we have committed there, which is 700 million a day, is essentially volumes that we would route out from existing pipelines. T his is not a volume that we are growing into, and that's just more altering the flow path and moving volumes around on the pipeline network. I t doesn't really constrain us or put any restrictions on us with regards to how we grow it, s o you shouldn't really worry about that constraint. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ati Modak with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning, team. Just curious if you can provide any color on how you are thinking about the deleveraging plan, given where the strip is and what that means for free cash flow this year. I know you have cash on the balance sheet, but is there a minimum cash you would like to retain through the year as you go paying down debt? Yeah. Hey, Ati, this is Nick. I'll start, and then Mohit may have more to add here. I just would reiterate that, you know, as a standalone company, we don't have a debt reduction target. A s we think about our 2024 plan, we're very, very comfortable with all of the decisions we're making and the very strong balance sheet we have frankly, with and without these decisions being made. That said, pro forma for the close, we will be very focused on debt reduction. One of the reasons we find ourselves in the position we're in today, which is to be able to be a very efficient consolidator, in a merger context with Southwestern, to be able to have the capital flexibility we're showing with how we're directing our production cadence this year, all relates to having a very strong balance sheet. It will be a top priority of this company to maintain a strong balance sheet through these cycles, and we see that being absolutely front and center for our strategy and something we expect to deliver on, regardless of the market conditions. Got it. This is Mohit. The only thing I would add to that is, coupled with a very strong hedge book and $1.1 billion of cash that we have on hand, it's a pretty strong balance sheet. F rom a leverage point of view, we feel pretty comfortable. T hen, when you start looking at the maturity profile of the debt that we have also, so there's no near-term maturities which are coming up. A s a standalone company, we are pretty comfortable with where we are. A s Nick said, once we are post-close with Southwestern, then we'll have a slightly different approach. Got it, t hat makes sense. T hen, with the activity and production guidance you've given, how should we think about the cadence of production through the rest of the year? Sounds like it could be a steady quarterly reduction, but any color you can provide there, if it's going to be a step change or steady? T hen also help us understand what the cadence is between the Appalachian and the Haynesville assets. Yeah, maybe just kind of address the second question first. You know, really at this point, that's just undetermined. Again, there's different market dynamics between each areas. Each of the assets have, you know, different, you know, cost structures that's going to guide that ultimate decision on, you know, how we, you know, restart, you know, TIL wells or activating completions. You know, as far as the production cadence, you know, again, we've stated that, you know, we'll have 30-40 turn-in-lines for the year. We've already turned in line 25 of those. A s a result, you know, we are anticipating quarter-over-quarter decline. You know, as we look at kind of Q4 2023 to Q4 2024, you know, we see that equating at a corporate level to, you know, just under 30%, with Haynesville being slightly above that and Marcellus being, you know, slightly under 30%. I t'll be a pretty steady decline. Got it. Thank you for taking the questions. Thank you. O ur final question today comes from Phillips Johnston with Capital One. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks, I appreciate your comments. You can't really speak for Southwestern. Just wondering, from a housekeeping perspective, when you guys plan to provide pro forma guidance that includes the impact of the deal. Is the timing there probably around when it closes? I think that's a good, safe assumption, Phillips. Okay. Thanks. T hen Nick, I'd be curious to hear your high-level thoughts, just on the administration's calls on the LNG front and what you think that might mean for the long-term gas market. You know, we are still really optimistic on the long-term gas market, and that's just based on the underlying view that natural gas is the most efficient answer to energy supply challenges around the world. Those supply challenges come from shortages or limited access to energy broadly. They come from climate concerns, they come from political instability concerns, and natural gas is really the best answer, especially natural gas in the U.S., is the best answer to all of those challenges. As a result, we think that the administration will ultimately find a very strong answer as they review the need for permitting approvals here. We expect that that will be seen positively as we see it, and we expect this will move on in due time. I think it's unfortunate. I think it's not good for those parts of the economy that need incremental energy, and need it as quickly as they can get it. This pause will slow things down a little, which is unfortunate and not great for those that are seeking incremental gas. W e have confidence that the merits of LNG export from the U.S. will be seen by all, and that approvals will be taken back up again in the future. Sounds good. Thanks, Nick. Thank you. This concludes our question- and- answer session. I'd like to turn the conference back over to the management team for any closing remarks. Okay. Thanks, Rocco. Really appreciate everybody's time today. We know that our approach for 2024 is a little bit different than we've been able to do in the past as a company, and that we think we've seen from others. We think it very much addresses the challenge that is seen in the market today, which is a near-term oversupply and a long-term, very structurally positive natural gas market. We're excited about the position we're in. We look forward to the ultimate aligning of supply and demand in the market, and a recovery for natural gas broadly associated with that alignment and we think we're really well positioned for that. L ook forward to continuing to discuss this with all of you. We'll be out on the road at a number of different conferences and events in the next week to two weeks, and look forward to engaging throughout the year. Thanks very much for your time again today, and we'll talk soon. Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. We thank you all for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect your lines, and have a wonderful day.